Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Oakland > MD? You tell 'em, Skip!
Skip Bayless of ESPN has a great column up about the democratic nature of NCAA tournament selection, and how it lessens the quality of tournament teams. Do I think Maryland would have done any damage in the tournament? No, they look like they would have been a first-round loser at this point in the season. But all a 12-18 team (like Oakland) has to do is get hot for 3 or 4 games at the end of the year to make the field? Let's see Oakland or Montana beat Maryland, Notre Dame, or Miami. I know it increases interest in the first round to have small schools and geographic diversity represented. But is this really a collection of the best 65 teams in the country? Please.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree completely, Jay. It's definitely not the point of the tourney, but when one's team doesn't make it in for the first time since you've followed the sport, funny how one finds fault with aspects of the tourney that one had no problem with previously. The tournament probably wouldn't be as popular nationwide if the best 64 teams made it in. That being said, I like the idea of ending the season in early January and starting a Division 1-wide tournament. Seedings would be based on astrology, tarot cards, and of course, gambling interests.
I agree with jay on the DivI wide tourney. I mean this arbitrary team selection is ridiculous. Why is VT forced to play in the NIT while NC State (who finished below them in the ACC and split the regular season matchups) are allowed the play in the NCAAs.
Post a Comment